State v. Smith

Superior Court of Maine, Kennebec

May 1, 2017

STATE OF MAINEv.LEROY SMITH III

ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCE TO STAND
TRIAL

Background

Leroy
Smith III stands accused of intentionally or knowingly, or
with depraved indifference, causing the death of his father
in Gardiner, Maine on May 3, 2014. Mr. Smith has been
represented throughout these proceedings by Attorneys Pam
Ames and Scott Hess, and the State is represented by
Assistant Attorney General Don Macomber. The issue of Mr.
Smith's competence to stand trial has been pending since
shortly after his arrest on this charge, May 5, 2014. This
matter was originally assigned to Justice Donald Marden but
was reassigned to the undersigned Justice on December 15,
2016.

Justice
Marden has issued multiple orders in this case. In May of
2014, Justice Marden ordered that Mr. Smith be evaluated for
competence. After Dr. Ann LeBlanc, head of the State Forensic
service, found on May 13, 2014 that Mr. Smith lacked the
skills required for competence, Justice Marden on June 23,
2014 ordered that he be transferred to Riverview Psychiatric
Facility for treatment and evaluation where he has remained
since that date. Dr. Robert Riley on August 15, 2014
conducted a neuropsychological evaluation of Mr. Smith and
concluded that Mr. Smith functioned in the high average range
of overall intellectual ability, and that he showed no signs
of head trauma or other cognitive impairments. Dr. Leblanc
evaluated him again in October of 2014 and concluded that as
of that date Mr. Smith was still floridly delusional. She saw
him again in December of 2014 and found his condition
unchanged.

Justice
Marden on January 5, 2015 issued an order finding Mr. Smith
incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he remain at
Riverview for restoration of competence, and ordered periodic
evaluations of Mr. Smith pursuant to 15 M.R. S. § 101
-D. Pursuant to that order, Dr. Leblanc evaluated him again
and opined in her March 5, 2015 report that Mr. Smith
remained incompetent. She stated, however, that competence
might be restored if he received medication. Mr. Smith,
however, refused to take medication as prescribed by
Riverview staff and also refused to be evaluated by Dr. Peter
Donnelly.

In June
of 2015 the State filed a motion pursuant to 15 M.R.S.
§106(3) for the Court to order that Mr. Smith be
involuntarily medicated in order to restore competence. In
August of 2015, Dr. Donnelly issued a report that agreed with
Dr. Leblanc that medication therapy was likely to improve Mr.
Smith's condition. On December 2, 2015 Justice Marden
conducted a testimonial hearing on the State's motion for
involuntary medication. On January 4, 2016 Justice Marden
granted the motion, and additionally ordered that the State
Forensic Service conduct monthly evaluations and issue
reports on Mr. Smith's condition, as well as ordering
Riverview to provide updates on Mr. Smith's condition.

Findings
and Conclusions

The
Court has reviewed all of the prior orders issued by Justice
Marden, the available transcripts of hearings, as well as all
of the evaluations including the monthly and weekly updates
provided by the State Forensic Service and
Riverview.[1] In addition, after taking this case over
from Justice Marden, the Court conducted testimonial hearings
on January 20, 2017 and February 14, 2017. The Defense was
asking the Court to find that Mr. Smith was still not
competent to stand trial, and to dismiss the charges against
him. The State was asking that the Court find that competence
had been restored, and for an order extending Justice
Marden's order for involuntary medication. At the January
20, 2017 hearing Dr. Leblanc testified along with Dr.
Donnelly, Dr. Douglas, and Miriam Davidson who is a
Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner. The Defendant's examiner,
Dr. Carlysle Voss was not available on that date but he
testified on February 14, 2017.

Dr.
LeBlanc testified that Mr. Smith's condition had
significantly improved since Riverview began medication
therapy pursuant to Justice Marden's orders. In addition,
she noted that his understanding of the legal system and
process had always been "excellent." According to
Dr. Leblanc, Mr. Smith has a clear understanding of the role
of legal actors, including what it means to plead not
criminally responsible and what an indeterminate commitment
would mean to his liberty. Remarkably, he also understood
what it meant to have a bifurcated trial after entry of a
plea of not criminally responsible. She testified that he
seemed reluctant to enter an NCR plea in part because of the
experience of another patient.

As of
the date of that hearing, Dr. Leblanc testified that he was
still not willing to meet with his attorneys ~ which had
obviously been a source of some frustration and concern on
their part. However, Dr. Leblanc testified that Mr. Smith had
recently begun to be able "step back" when talking
to examiners about the case and his otherwise steadfast
delusions about why he killed his father. What was new, she
said, was his ability to speak about his case and his
attorneys separate from the delusions he still maintained.
She said he remained "unrealistic" about what his
attorneys could do to investigate his claims, and that he did
not trust them. At the same time, she said he was able to see
his attorneys as essential to his case. What she described
was not a situation where he was unable to communicate with
them but more a situation of his not being willing to
communicate with them. Nevertheless she described his
motivation to cooperate and get through the process as
"very high." He wanted, she stated, to be found
competent, to proceed to trial, and he wanted his beliefs
heard about why he felt he had to kill his father. She said
he also understood he risked conviction if his explanation or
defense was not believed by a jury or judge. In response to
questions from the Court about persons who suffer from a
delusional disorders, and whether they can ever be competent
if they continue to hold delusions about their motivations to
engage in certain criminal conduct, she stated that it was
possible for a person with a delusional disorder to be
competent to stand trial. The goal would be to have the
patient motivated to look at the consequences of certain
decisions and figure out what is in their best interest. In
Mr. Smith's case, she indicated that he made it very
clear that he understood that if his defense or defenses were
rejected by the trier of fact, he would want to then ask that
he be found not criminally responsible.

Dr.
Donnelly testified that Mr. Smith has always possessed an
"excellent understanding" of the legal process, the
consequences of certain decisions he might make, and that he
has "always understood the players." The issue, he
stated, has always been his ability to assist in his defense.
Dr. Donnelly also noted areas of improvement in Mr.
Smith's understanding that there was limited evidence
that his father was trying to poison him, and described the
"impasse" that existed between himself and his
attorneys. He had developed, however, an ability to
"compartmentalize" his delusions, an ability which
had been lacking previously. He stated that Mr. Smith had the
ability to make it through a trial in terms of maintaining
his composure, along with the ability to let others know when
he had reached a point where he needed to take "a
break." He concluded that Mr. Smith had developed the
ability to understand why a jury might think his delusions
were "crazy" and that if the jury rejected his
defense he would accept the possibility that perhaps the
delusions were not real. When asked now if he is sure his
delusions are real Mr. Smith's answer now was, "I
just don't know."

Dr.
Douglass testified that he had seen Mr. Smith twice, most
recently on January 12, 2017. He testified that he was able
to talk about his day-to-day life in an appropriate way. With
respect to his legal situation he continued to reference his
delusions but he could talk about his legal situation in a
reality-based way. He stated he agreed with Drs. Leblanc and
Donnelly about his ability to make it through a trial with
breaks and medication, but that he continued to mistrust his
attorneys. When asked if he might be receptive to working
with new counsel he stated that Mr. Smith might be able to
work better with different counsel. Dr. Douglass stated that
his sense was that he felt his attorneys had
"dismissed" his beliefs about why he killed his
father and that this was the source of his mistrust of them.
He agreed with the other examiners that despite his attorneys
efforts to have him found not competent, that Mr. Smith very
much wanted to be found competent by the Court.

Miriam
Davidson testified that Mr. Smith had made significant
progress since Justice Marden issued the involuntary
medication order. She described him as being open to others,
is perceived by others as a leader, and noted that he had
been elected President of his unit. She testified that the
hospital had started Mr. Smith on Zyprexa which caused a lot
of side effects, the worst of which was significant weight
gain. However, after changing his medication to Haldol, and
finding the "right amount" of that medication, he
began to lose most of the weight. She described him as being
much more awake, and he was able to exercise and participate
in yoga and in an "1ST" group. She described him as
having a "very high level of functioning" with a
good ability to handle conflict and to stay calm. Ms.
Davidson testified that while he continued to have delusions,
that he was able to "draw them in" which meant that
one had to "press him" to talk about the delusions.
She did state that while he was taking the medication orally
for months without complaint, that she was not sure he would
do so if the order was lifted. Overall, she described him as
"motivated to move forward."

Shortly
after the January 20, 2017 hearing Ms. Davidson contacted Mr.
Smith's defense counsel to tell them that Mr. Smith was
willing to meet with them. A meeting was set up, and by all
reports Mr. Smith has been cooperating with his counsel since
then.

On
February 14, 2017 Dr. Carlysle Voss testified that while he
agreed with the other examiners about Mr. Smith's
understanding of the legal process and its players, his fixed
delusions precluded him from assisting counsel in his
defense. He had noted in his report that as of the time of
his evaluation of Mr. Smith he was refusing to meet with his
attorneys. He testified that had just learned that had
recently changed. As to whether it was "rational"
for Mr. Smith to undergo a bifurcated trial at which he first
asserted his "delusional" defense of self defense,
with the understanding that if that failed he would be ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.